Page 1

Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013

Item # 23

Project No. Project Name

Subdivision 2013S-205-001 Country Club Estates, Resub Lots 22 & 23, Blk D

Council District School District Requested by

7 – Davis 3 – Speering Jeffrey & Julie Miler, owners, James Terry & Associates, surveyor

Staff Reviewer Staff Recommendation

Aprill Approve, including a separate driveway for Lot 2, under current policy of reviewing based on the definitions of compatibility in Section 3-2.2 of the Subdivision Regulations (one-tier approach). Should the Commission determine that the new interpretation of Section 3-5.1 be reviewed separately from Section 3-5.2, staff recommends disapproval (two-tier approach).

________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUEST Final plat to create two single-family residential lots. Final Plat A request for final plat approval to create two lots on property located at 1415 Janie Avenue, approximately 1,300 feet north of McGavock Pike, zoned Single-Family Residential (RS7.5) (0.43 acres). Existing Zoning Single-Family Residential (RS7.5) requires a minimum 7,500 square foot lot and is intended for single-family dwellings at a density of 4.94 dwelling units per acre. RS 7.5 would allow a maximum of 2 units. CRITICAL PLANNING GOALS  Supports infill development The proposed subdivision will provide additional housing opportunities in a developed area where a infrastructure is adequate. INFILL SUBDIVISION REVIEW: ONE OR TWO-TIER APPROACH In 2011, the Subdivision Regulations were amended. Included in the amendment was the replacement of Section 3-5, Lot Comparability with Section 3-5, Infill Subdivisions. The section applies to subdivision proposals in areas that are predominately developed. The first section, Section 3-5.1, requires that new lots in areas that are predominately developed be generally comparable to surrounding lots and is written as follows:


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013

Proposed Subdivision


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 1. Infill Subdivisions. In areas previously subdivided and predominately developed, residential lots resulting from a proposed subdivision within the R and RS zoning districts on an existing street shall be generally comparable with surrounding lots. The subsequent section, Section 3-5.2, refers to criteria for determining comparability which is as follows: 2. Criteria for Determining Comparability: The following criteria shall be met to determine comparability of lots within infill subdivisions: a. The resulting density of lots within the RL, RLM and RM land use policies do not exceed the prescribed densities of the polices. b. For lots within NE, NM and NG policies, the lots fit into the community character as defined in Section 7-2 and are consistent with the general plan. c. All minimum standards of the zoning code are met. d. Each lot has street frontage or meets the requirements of Section 3-4.2.b for fronting onto an open space or meets the requirements of Sections 4-6.3 or 5-3.1 fronting onto open space. e. The current standards of all reviewing agencies are met. One-Tier Approach Under the one-tier approach, staff read subsections 1 and 2 together and defined comparability by utilizing the language in Subsection 3-5.2. New lots would be comparable in the RL, RLM and RM land use polices if the resulting densities do not exceed the prescribed densities of the policies. The density calculation can be determined two ways: 1. Looking at the lot(s) proposed for subdivision; 2. Looking at a larger area. The area for determining density is not defined; therefore, staff must use best judgment to define the area to use for the density calculation. It could include solely the lots created by the proposed subdivision, adjacent lots on both sides of the lot(s) proposed for the subdivision, across the street or the entire block. Two-Tier Approach Under the two-tier approach, subsections 1 and 2 are considered separately, creating a two-part test for determining comparability. Staff must first determine if the proposed lots are generally comparable, as specified in subsection 1. The terms “generally comparable” and “surrounding lots” are not defined. If it is determined that the proposed lots are generally comparable to surrounding lots, then the new lots must also be consistent with subsection 2. Since the regulations do not define the area for which proposed lots should be compared, staff must define an area for which to compare. Without guidance from the regulations, the defined area becomes subjective. To reduce subjectivity, staff has defined the area to compare as lots on the same block face. If it is a corner lot then staff assessment would include both block faces.


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission is the final interpreter of the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning Commission has the ability to agree with either interpretation or provide a new interpretation. PLAN DETAILS This subdivision proposes two single-family lots where one lot currently exists. The lot is located on the northeast side of Janie Avenue, north of McGavock Pike and south of Gallatin Pike. The existing lot is approximately 18,867 square feet (.43 acres) in size. The site is situated within a predominately single-family residential neighborhood. Both lots will contain the minimum lot area required by RS7.5 zoning. The approximate lot areas and street frontages are as follows: Lot 1: 10, 749 sq. ft. (.25 acres); 54’ along Janie Lot 2: 8,118 sq. ft. (.19 acres); 46’ along Janie ANALYSIS One-Tier Approach The land use policy that applies to the existing lot and the majority of the surrounding lot is Residential Medium. The Residential Medium policy is designed to accommodate residential development within a range of about four to nine dwelling units per acre. The density for the proposed two lots is approximately 4.6 units per acre (2 Units/.43 acres = 4.6 units per acre). Because the density of the subdivision is within the density allowed by the land use policy, the two proposed lots are comparable. For informational purposes, staff also calculated the density for the area. The lots considered in the calculation include lots on the north side of Janie Avenue from Murray Place to lots near the intersection with McGavock Pike. The density for the area, including the proposed two lot subdivision is approximately 3.4 units per acre (21 Units/6.17 = 3.4 units per acre). This is below the policy for the area. Two-Tier Approach First, staff determines whether the subdivision is “generally comparable”. The two proposed lots are not generally comparable in terms of lot size and width at the street: Average Area: .34 acres Average Frontage: 89 feet Proposed Areas: Lot 1 is .25 acres, Lot 2 is .19 acres Proposed Frontages: Lot 1 is 54’, Lot 2 is 46’ Since the lots are not generally comparable to the surrounding lots then it is not necessary to consider whether the lots are consistent with the community plan policy. Under this approach, staff recommends disapproval.


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 ACCESS Section 3-5.3 of the Subdivision Regulations requires joint access. Lot 1 has an existing driveway on the northwestern edge of the property, which cannot be used to access Lot 2. Section 3-5.3 of the Subdivision Regulations states, “Infill lots with a street frontage of less than 50 feet in width shall have rear or side access via an alley. Where no improved alley exists, these lots shall be accessed via a shared drive.” Further, “the Planning Commission may waive this requirement if existing conditions prevent alley access of shared drive access.” Lot 2 is 46’ wide, which requires a joint access. Additionally, due to the existing driveway, garage, and residence on Lot 1, it is not feasible to require joint access for the benefit of both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Staff recommends an exception to these requirements. STORMWATER RECOMMENDATION APPROVED WATER SERVICES RECOMMENDATION APPROVED  As all our previous comments have been addressed on the latest re-plat (stamped received Nov 11 2013), we recommend approval on the sewer only. Madison serves this site with water PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS  The developer's final construction drawings shall comply with the design regulations established by the Department of Public Works. Final design may vary based on field conditions.  If sidewalks are required, then they should be shown on the plan per Public Works standards with the required curb and gutter and grass strip. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve, including a separate driveway for Lot 2, under current policy of reviewing based on the definitions of compatibility in Section 3-2.2 of the Subdivision Regulations (one-tier approach). Should the Commission determine that the new interpretation of Section 3-5.1 be reviewed separately from Section 3-5.2, staff recommends disapproval (two-tier approach). CONDITIONS 1. Sidewalks are required along the Janie Avenue frontage of the proposed subdivision. Therefore, prior to final plat recordation, one of the options must be chosen related to sidewalks: a. Submit a bond application and post a bond with the Planning Department, b. Construct sidewalk and have it accepted by Public Works, c. Submit contribution in-lieu of construction to the Planning Department, one additional lot will require a $500 contribution to Pedestrian Benefit Zone 2-A. d. Construct an equal length of sidewalk within the same Pedestrian Benefit Zone (2-A), in a location to be determined in consultation with the Public Works Department, or add the following note to the plat: "No building permit is to be issued on any of the proposed lots until the required sidewalk is constructed per the Department of Public Works


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 specifications." Sidewalk shall be shown and labeled on the plan per Public Works Standards with the required curb and gutter.


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013

Item # 19

Project No. Project Name

2013S-198-001 Autumn Oaks, Ph. 10B

Council District School District Requested by

31– Bedne 2 – Brannon Investment Properties, LLC, owners, Crawford & Cummings, P.C., surveyor

Staff Reviewer Aprill Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions ________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUEST Final plat to create 32 lots within Autumn Oaks Planned Unit Development Overlay District. Final Plat Approval A request for final plat approval to create 32 lots and dedicate right-of-way within the Autumn Oaks Planned Unit Development Overlay District on property located at Autumn Crossing Way (unnumbered), approximately 2,300 feet north of Nolensville Pike (10.82 acres), zoned One and Two-Family Residential (R20). Existing Zoning Autumn Oaks Planned Unit Development, Phase 10B Last approved by Council in 1988 for 354 single-family lots. This portion of the PUD was revised in 2011 to divide Phase 10 into two sections (Phase 10A and 10B), with no changes to the total number of lots. This portion of the revised PUD was previously approved for 32 single-family lots. One and Two-Family Residential (R20) requires a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots and is intended for single-family dwellings and duplexes at an overall density of 2.31 dwelling units per acre, including 25 percent duplex lots. CRITICAL PLANNING GOALS N/A PLAN DETAILS The applicant requests final plat approval to create 32 lots within the Autumn Oaks Planned Unit Development Overlay District on 10.82 acres. The lots are arranged along a horseshoe-shaped street, with 1.68 acres, or 20% of this phase, provided as open space. Normally, final plats are reviewed and approved administratively if they are consistent with the approved final site plan; however, the Planning Commission is reviewing this request for final plat approval due to a MPC policy established on May 6, 2009, regarding performance bonds. Specifically, this policy states that: “The Planning Department will not administratively approve any applications, including those for bonds, final plats, UDOs, SPs, and PUDs, for any development within the same UDO, SP, or PUD as another phase with a breached performance agreement with expired security. This is applied where the breach has occurred by the same developer, or by a separate developer.”


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013

Proposed Subdivision


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 In this case, Metro has made a demand on the surety company for Phase 8B of the Autumn Oaks Planned Unit Development. Timeline of Events:  2009: Bond policy established  2011: Phase 10A receives final site plan approval  2012: Metro makes a demand on the surety company for Phase 8B, turns file over to Legal  2013 (April): Application for final site plan for Phase 10B is submitted  2013 (October): Application for final plat approval for Phase 10B is submitted In addition to the demand on the surety company, Metro placed a hold on the two remaining vacant properties within Phase 8B. A hold was also placed on all other undeveloped portions of this PUD. Staff has determined that Phase 10B is not dependent on Phase 8B for infrastructure or roadway connections. Staff has also determined that the developers and owners of Phase 8B are in no way connected to the developers and owners of Phase 10B. ANALYSIS The final plat for Phase 10B of the Autumn Oaks PUD is consistent with the final site plan approved in April 2013. It makes no changes to the number of approved lots, and makes only one minor change to the size of a lot, to absorb a corner of open space. Section 10B exceeds the open space requirement of 15% with 20% open space. The Autumn Oaks PUD has another phase with a breached performance agreement. The bond for Autumn Oaks, Phase 8B (Subdivision No. 2010S-065-001) was posted in February 2011, by a different developer. The bond for Phase 8B was called in June 2012, because the developer had not received approval for the release or extension of the bond. A demand letter was sent to the American Safety Casualty Insurance Company on June 11, 2012. The surety company was given two weeks to submit proceeds from the bond to the Metro Planning Department, or the case would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Department of Law. The surety company did not submit payment on the bond; therefore, the case was turned over to Metro Legal on June 28, 2012. Phase 10B is adjacent to phases 3, 7, and 10A, but is dependent only on Phase 10A for vehicular access out of the subdivision. Phase 10A was approved for final plat recording on February 15, 2013. Phase 3 and Phase 7 have both been constructed and completed. The bond application for this phase will also require Planning Commission approval. FIRE MARSHAL RECOMMENDATION APPROVED  Note: flow data from previous phases. STORMWATER RECOMMENDATION APPROVED


Metro Planning Commission Meeting of 12/12/2013 PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATION NO EXCEPTION TAKEN  The developer's final construction drawings shall comply with the design regulations established by the Department of Public Works. Final design may vary based on field conditions. WATER SERVICES RECOMMENDATION APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS  As all of our previous conditions have been met on the latest replat on “stamp received” Nov. 19, 2013. We recommend approval contingent on construction as detailed previously. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with conditions. This final plat is consistent with the approved site plan. It is not dependent on the portion of the PUD with incomplete infrastructure. Additionally, this phase is owned by a different developer than the phase with incomplete infrastructure. CONDITIONS 1. The final plat for Phase 10A shall be recorded prior to Phase 10B. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permits, confirmation of PUD final site plan approval of this proposal shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Stormwater Management division of Water Services. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits, confirmation of PUD final site plan approval of this proposal shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission by the Traffic Engineering Sections of the Metro Department of Public Works for all improvements within public rights of way. 4. This approval does not include any signs. Signs in planned united developments must be approved by the Metro Department of Codes Administration except in specific instances when the Metro Council directs the Metro Planning Commission to review such signs. 5. The requirements of the Metro Fire Marshal’s Office for emergency vehicle access and adequate water supply for fire protection must be met prior to the issuance of any building permits. 6. Authorization for the issuance of permit applications will not be forwarded to the Department of Codes Administration until four additional copies of the approved plans have been submitted to the Metro Planning Commission.

Staff Report Examples  

Metro Nashville-Davidson County Staff Reports

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you